https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35031 Cenvat/Modvat credit should not be denied for mere technical defects in invoices where substantive entitlement is otherwise established. Credit was allowed on extra copies of invoices, on invoices lacking the "duplicate for transporter" endorsement, and where dealer invoice serial numbers were typed or rubber-stamped, because these were treated as procedural lapses without substantive defect. Credit was, however, denied for one invoice where no supporting evidence was produced. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) was deleted because the dispute arose during the early stage of the scheme and involved technical lapses rather than wrongful availment. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35031 Cenvat/Modvat credit should not be denied for mere technical defects in invoices where substantive entitlement is otherwise established. Credit was allowed on extra copies of invoices, on invoices lacking the "duplicate for transporter" endorsement, and where dealer invoice serial numbers were typed or rubber-stamped, because these were treated as procedural lapses without substantive defect. Credit was, however, denied for one invoice where no supporting evidence was produced. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) was deleted because the dispute arose during the early stage of the scheme and involved technical lapses rather than wrongful availment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35031